CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

I don't see how this is a company telling a government to pound sand. The CA requirements are MORE strict than the new federal requirements. Is it really telling a government to pound sand when they're exceeding the government standards? Maybe I'm missing something...

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Edit: I should probably read the comments before making the same reply as someone else whoops.

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Because they're saying, "even if you tell us not to, we're doing it anyway. You can't stop us, neener-neener." Again - given who they're saying it to, I'm sympathetic, but there are some inherent problems.

To be explicit: The problem I have isn't the improved efficiency, it's the fact that corporations have a little too much power.

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

I don't see a problem with this. They say they would pursue legal challenges, not just say "fuck you" to the feds.

The Obama administration in 2012 adopted a fuel economy standard that would gradually increase the average miles per gallon rating for most cars to 54.5mpg by 2025 (about 40mpg under real world conditions).

Is there an estimate for what technology is required to do this, and the per-vehicle costs needed to accomplish this?

It is currently Prius level economy or near, which bodes poorly for larger vehicles that can come close (a minivan being a common instance of a vehicle that will struggle to remain useful and maintain a Prius level of fuel burn).

If the costs of doing this drive up the cost of a new car such that older, less efficient vehicles are maintained on the roads far longer, it may not improve fuel consumption values as much as is hoped.

I would rather see increased taxes on fuels (perhaps a carbon dividend) such that fuel burn is reduced, regardless of vehicle efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing operating costs often lead to simply longer commutes and more driving - this is as true today as in 1865 when Jevons observed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Because they're saying, "even if you tell us not to, we're doing it anyway. You can't stop us, neener-neener." Again - given who they're saying it to, I'm sympathetic, but there are some inherent problems.

To be explicit: The problem I have isn't the improved efficiency, it's the fact that corporations have a little too much power.

No one is stopping or trying to stop the corporations from making more efficient cars. The feds are trying to allow them not to make them so efficient, but that is a very different thing from telling them no to make them that efficient.

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Because they're saying, "even if you tell us not to, we're doing it anyway. You can't stop us, neener-neener." Again - given who they're saying it to, I'm sympathetic, but there are some inherent problems.

To be explicit: The problem I have isn't the improved efficiency, it's the fact that corporations have a little too much power.

CARB is the California Air Resource Board. It's an agency of the state of California; not a corporation.

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Because they're saying, "even if you tell us not to, we're doing it anyway. You can't stop us, neener-neener." Again - given who they're saying it to, I'm sympathetic, but there are some inherent problems.

To be explicit: The problem I have isn't the improved efficiency, it's the fact that corporations have a little too much power.

They do but I don't think that applies here. It's not like the administration is telling them to keep polluting, it's telling them they can. What the companies are saying amounts to "even if you tell us we don't have to improve mileage, we're doing it."

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Because they're saying, "even if you tell us not to, we're doing it anyway. You can't stop us, neener-neener." Again - given who they're saying it to, I'm sympathetic, but there are some inherent problems.

To be explicit: The problem I have isn't the improved efficiency, it's the fact that corporations have a little too much power.

I think you're confused. Dr Nichols is part of the California Air Resource Board. CARB is California government.

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Because they're saying, "even if you tell us not to, we're doing it anyway. You can't stop us, neener-neener." Again - given who they're saying it to, I'm sympathetic, but there are some inherent problems.

To be explicit: The problem I have isn't the improved efficiency, it's the fact that corporations have a little too much power.

CARB isn't a corporation it's California Air Resources Board which is part of the CA state .gov. This is how the whole State Rights is supposed to work and all of the republicans that claim they want state rights should be all for this.

This isn't a case of Ford telling the white house they don't care what their standards are they are going to beat them it is a case of CA telling the white house to fuck off which in this case I can fully get behind.

Good for California and bravo to the companies who cooperated. Certainly this will benefit their business, but I'd much rather see companies benefiting from cooperating to set a reasonable standard rather than benefit from fighting the standard tooth-and-nail in court or lobbying to make the standard go away.

The Obama administration in 2012 adopted a fuel economy standard that would gradually increase the average miles per gallon rating for most cars to 54.5mpg by 2025 (about 40mpg under real world conditions).

Is there an estimate for what technology is required to do this, and the per-vehicle costs needed to accomplish this?

It is currently Prius level economy or near, which bodes poorly for larger vehicles that can come close (a minivan being a common instance of a vehicle that will struggle to remain useful and maintain a Prius level of fuel burn).

If the costs of doing this drive up the cost of a new car such that older, less efficient vehicles are maintained on the roads far longer, it may not improve fuel consumption values as much as is hoped.

I would rather see increased taxes on fuels (perhaps a carbon dividend) such that fuel burn is reduced, regardless of vehicle efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing operating costs often lead to simply longer commutes and more driving - this is as true today as in 1865 when Jevons observed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I agree. The average age of cars operating on American roads is getting longer. It is now 12 years and the fleet does not turn over as fast as people believe. This is the big hole in the electric car fairy tale. Even if electric cars were now 100% of sales (they are actually less than 2% in the USA) our operating fleet would still be half petro-cars even in 2030. A fuel tax or carbon tax has an immediate effect.

That only compounds to a 15% improvement in fuel economy by 2026, which isn't too exciting. There should just be a $5/gal gas tax and call it done.

While a gas tax would solve issues related to the demand for inefficient trucks and the environment, it is an extremely regressive tax. The people most unable to afford a new efficient vehicle will also be paying a larger % of their income to drive to work.

The Obama administration in 2012 adopted a fuel economy standard that would gradually increase the average miles per gallon rating for most cars to 54.5mpg by 2025 (about 40mpg under real world conditions).

Is there an estimate for what technology is required to do this, and the per-vehicle costs needed to accomplish this?

It is currently Prius level economy or near, which bodes poorly for larger vehicles that can come close (a minivan being a common instance of a vehicle that will struggle to remain useful and maintain a Prius level of fuel burn).

If the costs of doing this drive up the cost of a new car such that older, less efficient vehicles are maintained on the roads far longer, it may not improve fuel consumption values as much as is hoped.

I would rather see increased taxes on fuels (perhaps a carbon dividend) such that fuel burn is reduced, regardless of vehicle efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing operating costs often lead to simply longer commutes and more driving - this is as true today as in 1865 when Jevons observed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

First of all, you need to realize that fleet mileage for thr regulations has almost no relation to the real world MPG. 54.5 mpg doesn't mean real world MPG. They can meet it by making every existing vehicle some form of hybrid, along with a handful of EVs. It translates to a real world highway mileage of around 30 mpg if I remember right.

The Obama administration in 2012 adopted a fuel economy standard that would gradually increase the average miles per gallon rating for most cars to 54.5mpg by 2025 (about 40mpg under real world conditions).

Is there an estimate for what technology is required to do this, and the per-vehicle costs needed to accomplish this?

It is currently Prius level economy or near, which bodes poorly for larger vehicles that can come close (a minivan being a common instance of a vehicle that will struggle to remain useful and maintain a Prius level of fuel burn).

If the costs of doing this drive up the cost of a new car such that older, less efficient vehicles are maintained on the roads far longer, it may not improve fuel consumption values as much as is

I would rather see increased taxes on fuels (perhaps a carbon dividend) such that fuel burn is reduced, regardless of vehicle efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing operating costs often lead to simply longer commutes and more driving - this is as true today as in 1865 when Jevons observed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I think the push towards hybridization and fully electric solutions are what will finally get us off gas. Making it more expensive, inconvenient and less desirable to continue spending large amount of money on R&D for internal combustion engines should help tip the scales toward greener technology. No incentive is perfect, but stronger incentives are better than weak incentives (CARB vs Trump).

The Obama administration in 2012 adopted a fuel economy standard that would gradually increase the average miles per gallon rating for most cars to 54.5mpg by 2025 (about 40mpg under real world conditions).

Is there an estimate for what technology is required to do this, and the per-vehicle costs needed to accomplish this?

It is currently Prius level economy or near, which bodes poorly for larger vehicles that can come close (a minivan being a common instance of a vehicle that will struggle to remain useful and maintain a Prius level of fuel burn).

If the costs of doing this drive up the cost of a new car such that older, less efficient vehicles are maintained on the roads far longer, it may not improve fuel consumption values as much as is hoped.

I would rather see increased taxes on fuels (perhaps a carbon dividend) such that fuel burn is reduced, regardless of vehicle efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing operating costs often lead to simply longer commutes and more driving - this is as true today as in 1865 when Jevons observed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

As the article states, that's only about 40 mpg real world. Manufacturers could attain that with today's technology if they wanted to since it's a fleet average. Especially if they could sell enough EVs with 100-130 mpg equivalent efficiency.

The Obama administration in 2012 adopted a fuel economy standard that would gradually increase the average miles per gallon rating for most cars to 54.5mpg by 2025 (about 40mpg under real world conditions).

Is there an estimate for what technology is required to do this, and the per-vehicle costs needed to accomplish this?

It is currently Prius level economy or near, which bodes poorly for larger vehicles that can come close (a minivan being a common instance of a vehicle that will struggle to remain useful and maintain a Prius level of fuel burn).

If the costs of doing this drive up the cost of a new car such that older, less efficient vehicles are maintained on the roads far longer, it may not improve fuel consumption values as much as is hoped.

I would rather see increased taxes on fuels (perhaps a carbon dividend) such that fuel burn is reduced, regardless of vehicle efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing operating costs often lead to simply longer commutes and more driving - this is as true today as in 1865 when Jevons observed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

In practice, to increase the average fuel efficiency you just need to shift your mix of low and high mpg vehicles. So you could still have some minivans that don't get 40 mpg, as long as you sell a lot of small, efficient cars.

That's really the obvious path forward, getting people to drive smaller cars. Short of greatly increasing gasoline taxes, which is unfortunately very regressive, I think it will take much higher prices on large, low mpg vehicles. It may be that to meet the average standards given consumer demand, all large vehicles (trucks, minivans, etc) need to become hybrids or EVs.

The Obama administration in 2012 adopted a fuel economy standard that would gradually increase the average miles per gallon rating for most cars to 54.5mpg by 2025 (about 40mpg under real world conditions).

Is there an estimate for what technology is required to do this, and the per-vehicle costs needed to accomplish this?

It is currently Prius level economy or near, which bodes poorly for larger vehicles that can come close (a minivan being a common instance of a vehicle that will struggle to remain useful and maintain a Prius level of fuel burn).

If the costs of doing this drive up the cost of a new car such that older, less efficient vehicles are maintained on the roads far longer, it may not improve fuel consumption values as much as is hoped.

I would rather see increased taxes on fuels (perhaps a carbon dividend) such that fuel burn is reduced, regardless of vehicle efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing operating costs often lead to simply longer commutes and more driving - this is as true today as in 1865 when Jevons observed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I agree. The average age of cars operating on American roads is getting longer. It is now 12 years and the fleet does not turn over as fast as people believe. This is the big hole in the electric car fairy tale. Even if electric cars were now 100% of sales (they are actually less than 2% in the USA) our operating fleet would still be half petro-cars even in 2030. A fuel tax or carbon tax has an immediate effect.

Considering the resources required to actually build the car in the first place, and the high cost of new cars, I'd say it's likely a net win to keep older cars on the road longer. There are better uses of the money than scrapping a perfectly fine 12 year old car for a minor increase in fuel efficiency. The people driving these old cars probably aren't going to be buying $50,000 EVs anyway.

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Edit: I should probably read the comments before making the same reply as someone else whoops.

Is OK. Its beats reading an article and not understanding what it says.

Why do the automakers feel so strongly about keeping the higher standards, against the wishes of Trump's admin? What's the benefit to their bottom line, here?

The automakers don't even comply with the standards as it is. Because consumers can't seem to accept any power loss as they upgrade to new vehicles, it's putting automakers in a weird position of being forced to use heavier vehicles per new safety requirements, but also needing to reduce emissions at the same time, and still be able to get up to highway speeds at an acceptable rate.

That led to most of the big automakers simply reducing displacement and slapping on some turbos, allowing them to pass the tests as long as the motor never went into boost. The actual consumption of these turbo motors under typical driving conditions has been far worse than reported, so who's to say any of the automakers are telling the truth? Just this week Ford was in the news for lying about their EcoBoost line. Who's next?

I don't get it. Rather than reduce their total emissions by diving head first into BEV or hydrogen, automakers lie to our faces about achieving better emissions, and lobby for tests that they've been cheating the whole time.

That only compounds to a 15% improvement in fuel economy by 2026, which isn't too exciting. There should just be a $5/gal gas tax and call it done.

While a gas tax would solve issues related to the demand for inefficient trucks and the environment, it is an extremely regressive tax. The people most unable to afford a new efficient vehicle will also be paying a larger % of their income to drive to work.

We should probably index the federal gas tax to inflation, though.

This is a common but false argument. People who are actually poor (lowest quintile of income) are overwhelmingly reliant on walking, biking, and public transit. Miles driven in private vehicles is strongly correlated with income. What's actually regressive is that we subsidize driving for the rich and underfund buses for the poor. If you are actually concerned about the well-being of low-income people then dump the proceeds of the tax into bus services.

I agree. The average age of cars operating on American roads is getting longer. It is now 12 years and the fleet does not turn over as fast as people believe. This is the big hole in the electric car fairy tale. Even if electric cars were now 100% of sales (they are actually less than 2% in the USA) our operating fleet would still be half petro-cars even in 2030. A fuel tax or carbon tax has an immediate effect.

Has it reached 12 years? As of last time I checked it was in the 11 range.

The problem is, fuel economy is not the only or best solution. A large truck, at 15 miles per gallon, driven 1500 miles a year, burns 100 gallons of fuel annually. A 55 mile per gallon Prius, driven slightly more than the average annual miles at 15,000 miles per year, burns 272 gallons. The problem with simply increasing fuel economy is that it encourages longer driving at the same cost, which is not useful.

A tapered increase of fuel costs, either via direct fuel taxes or (preferably) a carbon dividend (returned to the population at 95% or some similar level to account for overhead) disincentivizes fuel use - in all forms. If one choses to retain an older vehicle but burns less fuel through finding a closer job or carpooling or bicycling or etc, this is as effective or more effective than a newer, higher fuel efficiency car.

Further, extremely high fuel efficiency values are entirely possible if one is willing to allow vehicles that do not meet modern safety standards. A modern engine in an older Honda frame (the Insight looking vehicle from the 80s) would easily achieve excellent fuel burn values, but does have the problem of being, crash-wise, barely more protection than ones average beer can. There were many sub-2000lb vehicles that more than achieved modern fuel economy targets, simply without much in the way of modern accessories.

That only compounds to a 15% improvement in fuel economy by 2026, which isn't too exciting. There should just be a $5/gal gas tax and call it done.

While a gas tax would solve issues related to the demand for inefficient trucks and the environment, it is an extremely regressive tax. The people most unable to afford a new efficient vehicle will also be paying a larger % of their income to drive to work.

We should probably index the federal gas tax to inflation, though.

Which is why most people will agree that the revenue from the gas tax, in addition to subsidizing development of renewable energy sources, should also go to underserved communities and subsidizing public transit options.

None of that will ever happen in today's political climate, but it's good to dream.

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Because they're saying, "even if you tell us not to, we're doing it anyway. You can't stop us, neener-neener." Again - given who they're saying it to, I'm sympathetic, but there are some inherent problems.

To be explicit: The problem I have isn't the improved efficiency, it's the fact that corporations have a little too much power.

Let's frame it up differently - the government sets a standard that says you cannot legally throw more trash than X tons per month. Rather than following the government's legal guideline exactly, you choose to throw trash less than X tons per month.

In the case of carmakers, the government is telling the carmakers that they can choose to pollute more if they wish to do so. And the carmakers are telling the government - no thank you, we'll try to do better.

The Obama administration in 2012 adopted a fuel economy standard that would gradually increase the average miles per gallon rating for most cars to 54.5mpg by 2025 (about 40mpg under real world conditions).

Is there an estimate for what technology is required to do this, and the per-vehicle costs needed to accomplish this?

It is currently Prius level economy or near, which bodes poorly for larger vehicles that can come close (a minivan being a common instance of a vehicle that will struggle to remain useful and maintain a Prius level of fuel burn).

If the costs of doing this drive up the cost of a new car such that older, less efficient vehicles are maintained on the roads far longer, it may not improve fuel consumption values as much as is hoped.

I would rather see increased taxes on fuels (perhaps a carbon dividend) such that fuel burn is reduced, regardless of vehicle efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing operating costs often lead to simply longer commutes and more driving - this is as true today as in 1865 when Jevons observed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

In practice, to increase the average fuel efficiency you just need to shift your mix of low and high mpg vehicles. So you could still have some minivans that don't get 40 mpg, as long as you sell a lot of small, efficient cars.

That's really the obvious path forward, getting people to drive smaller cars. Short of greatly increasing gasoline taxes, which is unfortunately very regressive, I think it will take much higher prices on large, low mpg vehicles. It may be that to meet the average standards given consumer demand, all large vehicles (trucks, minivans, etc) need to become hybrids or EVs.

This probably isn't well thought out, but how about a refundable tax credit for buying an EV or high-MPH vehicle scaled to the efficiency of the vehicle you trade it? For example:

Capitalism working. The car companies know that consumers want more efficient vehicles. They will sell more this way. Previously, the govt was necessary for the solution. That is still the case, but a lighter touch will be sufficient for a few years, it seems. The car companies are self-regulating on this in the way their customers clearly want.

The Obama administration in 2012 adopted a fuel economy standard that would gradually increase the average miles per gallon rating for most cars to 54.5mpg by 2025 (about 40mpg under real world conditions).

Is there an estimate for what technology is required to do this, and the per-vehicle costs needed to accomplish this?

It is currently Prius level economy or near, which bodes poorly for larger vehicles that can come close (a minivan being a common instance of a vehicle that will struggle to remain useful and maintain a Prius level of fuel burn).

If the costs of doing this drive up the cost of a new car such that older, less efficient vehicles are maintained on the roads far longer, it may not improve fuel consumption values as much as is hoped.

I would rather see increased taxes on fuels (perhaps a carbon dividend) such that fuel burn is reduced, regardless of vehicle efficiency. Increasing fuel efficiency and reducing operating costs often lead to simply longer commutes and more driving - this is as true today as in 1865 when Jevons observed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I agree. The average age of cars operating on American roads is getting longer. It is now 12 years and the fleet does not turn over as fast as people believe. This is the big hole in the electric car fairy tale. Even if electric cars were now 100% of sales (they are actually less than 2% in the USA) our operating fleet would still be half petro-cars even in 2030. A fuel tax or carbon tax has an immediate effect.

CARB chair Mary D. Nichols echoed the sentiment, but she added a clear threat. "If the White House does not agree, we will move forward with our current standards but work with individual carmakers to implement these principles," she said. "At the same time, if the current federal vehicle standards proposal is finalized, we will continue to enforce our regulations and pursue legal challenges to the federal rule."

So, this is both awesome and scary.

It's awesome, because someone is standing up to Trump.

It's scary, because corporations and trade groups are powerful enough that they can tell governments to pound sand. To some that may seem laudable, but there are some darker consequences to that being the case; it is very much the case that government regulating business has led to things such as safe food, reliable fuel, and other useful parts of our day-to-day lives.

Final result? I don't know how to feel about this.

How is making your cars more efficient than the minimum requirement telling the government to pound sand?

Because they're saying, "even if you tell us not to, we're doing it anyway. You can't stop us, neener-neener." Again - given who they're saying it to, I'm sympathetic, but there are some inherent problems.

To be explicit: The problem I have isn't the improved efficiency, it's the fact that corporations have a little too much power.

That only compounds to a 15% improvement in fuel economy by 2026, which isn't too exciting. There should just be a $5/gal gas tax and call it done.

While a gas tax would solve issues related to the demand for inefficient trucks and the environment, it is an extremely regressive tax. The people most unable to afford a new efficient vehicle will also be paying a larger % of their income to drive to work.

We should probably index the federal gas tax to inflation, though.

This is a common but false argument. People who are actually poor (lowest quintile of income) are overwhelmingly reliant on walking, biking, and public transit. Miles driven in private vehicles is strongly correlated with income. What's actually regressive is that we subsidize driving for the rich and underfund buses for the poor. If you are actually concerned about the well-being of low-income people then dump the proceeds of the tax into bus services.

That might be true in urban areas, but is certainly not in suburban and rural areas where public transport options are poor or non-existent.